Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution"  a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism  which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people  citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history  reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read  not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence  any evidence, no matter how skimpy  to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion  especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

Except that TTOE did not create itself. It was created by human beings. It is not "just is" as you state. Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.

682
posted on 09/28/2006 8:41:28 PM PDT
by SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)

Except that TTOE did not create itself. It was created by human beings. It is not "just is" as you state.

All science is created by someone. TToE is no more pro- or anti- anything than mathematics (also created by human beings) is pro- or anti- anything.

Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.

Without human beings having created the theory in the first place there would be a lot fewer of us here, since TToE is the basis for any real Life Science research, which has led to the life sustaining drugs and medical protocols that we take for granted.

685
posted on 09/28/2006 8:46:52 PM PDT
by freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")

But I know one thing for sure: we did not descent (or is it ascend?) from monkies, as Darwin's theory asserts. The evidence? Go to a museum of natural history and there one will find all the evidence, if he/she's perceptive to discern the inconsistencies and distortions of Darwinists.

"Jorge, in what reality does evolution (as a theory) deny the existence of God? I will agree that there may be evolutionary scientists who might deny it, but the theory itself has no opinion on creationism or order from chaos theories. It simply attempts to explain the order of life on this planet."

To jump in on this, the TToE was created by humans. "IT" did not come into being in a vacuum. "IT" is dependent upon humans to determine what "IT" is. Therefore, "IT" doesn't actually exist at all. The theory takes on the life it has only in the context of humans who proffer up the tenets of the theory. Therefore, "IT", in the context of human beings interpreting it, can and does deny the existence of God.

691
posted on 09/28/2006 9:16:51 PM PDT
by SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)

So, how do you communicate the thought/idea that the theory of evolution is, indeed, dead, other than through communication, both written and oral, of the evidence?

Presentation of evidence that the theory of evolution is "doomed" is the only adequate means of demonstrating and communicating that the theory is, in fact, doomed. Thus far, no evidence that is not founded upon factually incorrect -- such as the claim that the second law of thermodynamics makse evolution impossible ss claims, claims irrelevant to the validity of the theory -- such as stating that Issac Newton was a Christian -- or claims that are both factually incorrect and irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution -- such as the bogus claim that Darwin 'recanted' the theory near the end of his life -- have been presented.

693
posted on 09/28/2006 9:21:19 PM PDT
by Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

But I know one thing for sure: we did not descent (or is it ascend?) from monkies, as Darwin's theory asserts.

The theory of evolution does not "assert" this. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism by which humans and extant monkeys descended from common ancestry.

The evidence? Go to a museum of natural history and there one will find all the evidence, if he/she's perceptive to discern the inconsistencies and distortions of Darwinists.

Given that you have erroneously stated that the theory of evolution postulates that humans "descented" from "monkies", I do not believe it reasonable to conclude that you have adequately evaluated all available evidence.

695
posted on 09/28/2006 9:24:42 PM PDT
by Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Wrong. "IT" can neither deny God nor does "IT" deny God. The person who uses evolution as a tool to deny God can and does do that. Evolution is not a living entity that can deny anything, it only serves as a method to explain life and it's many intricacies. Evolution has no "tenets" it merely has statements of fact and references to evidence that support the theory. Therefore, whether you want to attack Evolution as an evil entity out to deny the existense of God or not, Evolution can not nor will not care.

No and yes. Unless you want to put God in a box and deny Him the power that you are too scared to understand...

Well jeepers, Al, how 'bout a little credit for trying to be brave? Most biologists probably are believers of some sort, and think in terms of an overall divine plan, through some sort of guided evolution, but that's not the issue here. Believing that there is a divine plan doesn't necessarily interfere with one's study of the particular processes of evolution, any more than it necessarily interferes with one's study of history.

Creationists, perhaps, don't have a problem with micro-evolution, it's speciation that they can't accept, mainly because of its implications for the emergence of the human species. To preserve the special position of humankind within the order of nature, they have to insist that every species is the product of a special act of creation. Otherwise, one would not be preserving the uniformity of natural laws.

Clearly, there are still plenty of people who hang on to the notion of six days of creation, but they are not where the debate is. The Creationists who are actively opposed to Darwinism now talk of Intelligent Design, regardless of the time-scale involved. They insist that there are no transitional forms and that the complex systems of particular species are irreducible, so that they could have no function in a half-complete state.

The problem is that even high school biology teachers don't generally know much about evolutionary mechanisms, so the slide from a notion of guided evolution into pure Intelligent Design is an easy transition.

The Creationists are not all fools, by any means, but even their best arguments are shoddy special pleading, for the most part.

Most biologists, paleontologists and physical anthropologists in the US, whether they are believers or not, have no particular problem with the religion-evolution relationship.

There are a few biologists, mostly in the UK it seems to me, who insist that evolution abolishes God. That seems to me to be as thickheaded a position as that of the most dyed-in-the-wool Creationists.

Unfortunately, the hardline "Science Disproves God" crowd do far more to strengthen support for Creationism than any argument made by the Creationists.

The author asserts that "Darwinism is first and foremost a weapon against religion". There is no objective evidence provided in the article in support of such an assertion, and it appears to be a purely subjective determination.

That is not true - the author provides some evidence in the form of a quote from a famous evolutionist. You do understand you are trying to argue against somebodies qualitative option. While I don't agree with everything is the article, you do seem to be misrepresenting what it says. Try using quotes. You have yet to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

Gould is one person. Evolution is not Gould, and evolution makes no reference to a deity or lack thereof.

This statement makes no sense - you asked about the difference between two statements is which God is mentioned in one and not the other. Only people can express options - theories can't talk - be they Neo-Darwinist or not. It is obvious many Darwinists are very anti-religion.

Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.

I have no idea what you are rambling about but it sure does sound like you don't have any children - do you think childbirth is painless?

How are these not anti-religious?

Not sure what you are rambling about. Many evolutionists are very anti-religion.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.